This is a rush transcript from "Hannity," December 28, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GREGG JARRETT, FOX NEWS HOST: Welcome to this special edition of “Hannity: The Trump Agenda.” I'm Gregg Jarrett, in for Sean tonight.

It is day seven of the partial government shutdown. President Trump not backing down from his efforts to fund the ever-important wall on our southern border.

Today, he tweeted, let's quote here, we will be forced to close the southern border entirely if the obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our country is saddled with. Hard to believe there was a Congress and president who would approve. But the president is also threatening to cut off all U.S. aid to Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, the three Central American countries that are refusing to prevent migrant caravans from forming and mobilizing to our southern border.

As shutdown negotiations continue, President Trump has canceled his trip to Florida. He will remain at the White House.

In the meantime, soon-to-be speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is getting some rest and relaxation at a luxury resort in beautiful Hawaii. Incoming chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, is blaming her and other Democrats for the ongoing shutdown. Watch this.


MICK MULVANEY, INCOMING CHIEF OF STAFF: This is a crazy discussion to be having. All of the Dems, Chuck Schumer voted for border security in 2006. He voted for, again, I think in 2011. It seems like Democrats really like border security when there's a Democrat in office and don't like it when Donald Trump is in office.

I think what the president is trying to do and rightly so, is shed some light on what's happening here. In all fairness, I think that having worked with the vice-president and I met with leader Schumer last Saturday, the last time we sat down face to face. And my gut was that he was really interested in doing a deal and coming to some sort of compromise. But the more we are hearing this week, is that Nancy Pelosi is preventing that from happening.


JARRETT: Joining us now with more on this, Rich Edson -- Rich.

RICH EDSON, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good evening, Gregg.

And Capitol Hill is mostly quiet this evening, and there is little indication this partial shutdown ends this year. President Trump insists on money for a wall. House Democrats opposed it, calling a wall immoral, ineffective and expensive.

Next week, Democrats assume control of the House. Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, appears in line to become speaker again. Republicans are trying to pin shutdown blame on Pelosi, saying she is refusing to negotiate on wall funding to appeal to liberal House Democrats and assure their support in her race for speaker.


REP. PETER KING, R-N.Y.: The House Democrats are in a bit of a bind. I don't think Nancy Pelosi wants to put any offer on the table until after she is elected speaker and so that's holding it back.


EDSON: The White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney, says the administration offered Democrats a deal that would spend lesson a wall than the $5 billion the president is demanding. He said Democrats have shut down discussions. Democrats say they had a deal to fund the government until the president demanded more money for a wall.

New York congressman and Democratic caucus chairman, Hakeem Jeffries, tweeted, quote, day seven of the Republican shutdown, Republicans continue to hold the American people hostage. We refuse to pay a $5 billion ransom note. In other words, take a hike.

With most lawmakers out of town, congressional leaders say they will give members at least 24 hours notice to return to Washington to vote if there is an agreement. Back to you, Gregg.

JARRETT: Rich Edson -- Rich, thanks very much.

Joining us now with reaction, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs.

Good to have you both here.

Congressman, it wasn't just 2013 but all the way back to 2006, then Senator Schumer, Obama, Biden and Clinton were all voting in favor of constructing a barrier on the Mexican border. And, frankly, not much has changed in the interim 12 years, except the problem has gotten a lot worse.

Are people like Schumer suffering acute amnesia or is it just petty partisan politics? They can't stand to give Trump something he wants even though it is the same thing they have long wanted.

REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.: Yes. I'm not sure how sincere they were in 2006. But I can tell you what they are sincere about today is that they just don't like president Trump. They do not want him to get a victory. They want to impeach the guy.

So there is no way they want to give him a political victory right before they are going to open up impeachment hearings and further investigations on President Trump. And that's what this is. So, they are willing to put politics above national security. And this has always been a national security issue. It will continue to be until we build the wall and we start taking care of some of the other issues that go along with that.

JARRETT: All right. Speaking of national security, let me turn to the fine lawyer who is with you, Pam Bondi.

Three previous presidents have sealed the southern border. It was Reagan, it was Nixon, It was Johnson, exigent circumstances. They have broad latitude under -- I looked it up again today -- Section 215-A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Should this president act to do the same?

PAM BONDI, R-FLA., ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, you know, being a leader is leading by example, Gregg. We know that. That's exactly what President Trump is doing. He is in the White House wanting to work with the Democrats while they are vacationing.

I think he wants to compromise. I think Mick Mulvaney did a great job this morning, laying it out on fox, saying, we want to compromise, come to the table. That's what a true leader is. That's what President Trump is.

And could he do it? I absolutely believe he could. It is so much worse now than it's ever been.

JARRETT: Oh, yes.

BONDI: And I know firsthand as a career prosecutor. Yesterday, the drugs, 31 million kids could have been affected by the number of drugs that came through that border in one day. And those are just ones they caught.

That's unreal. That's almost the population of California. That's ridiculous. The children being smuggled.

That's what the president cares about, the security of Americans.

JARRETT: He absolutely does.

Congressman, the president's idea of cutting aid to Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, because they are doing nothing to stop these caravans that are coming to the United States border. Should he cut aid to those countries?

BIGGS: Yes, absolutely. I don't know if you're aware, but I'm sure you are. In Honduras, right now, there is another caravan forming up.

These are not organically formed. They are done with United States NGOs who go down there and form these caravans. We should be prosecuting those people for aiding and abetting crimes that are committed.

Yes, this is a real problem. This is a lever he has. He should use it.

I actually have a bill in Congress to pay for the wall with some of that money. And that's what should be happening instead of this game that's going on.

JARRETT: Pam, I want to pick up on something you said. Nancy Pelosi loves to portray Donald Trump as this insensitive, wealthy businessman. She -- I guess -- doesn't realize that we realize that her combined income or wealth with her husband is $58 million to $72 million. She lives in a very tony section of San Francisco and here is the president, working at the White House, willing to talk and she is off at a luxury resort in Hawaii.

BONDI: That's right.

JARRETT: Either she doesn't care about the optics or she just doesn't care about all those furloughed workers while she is enjoying fun and games in the sun. What do you think?

BONDI: Or the safety of the citizens, of our citizens. And that's what makes President Trump so special and such a leader. He, Mick Mulvaney, Kirstjen Nielsen right now -- look at Secretary Nielsen. Where is she? She is at our border just before New Year's.

All of these people are working. And Nancy Pelosi is basically, it's in their face is what she is doing, instead of trying to work together. Everything in this world, you know, the Congressman knows well, it is about compromise. That's how you get things done with opposing parties.

No one is going to be completely happy. But we have got to protect our citizens. President Trump and Mick Mulvaney said they are willing to work together.

For her, just walking away from the table when they are saying they want to compromise, it is actually sad.

JARRETT: Well, it could be described as either indifferent or heartless to those lives that may be in jeopardy and those workers who are without a job when she is having a great time in Hawaii.

Congressman, Democrats are going to be taking over the House next week. How does this then get resolved?

BIGGS: Well, I think there are two things to remember. First of all, the bill is sitting in the Senate. So, Chuck Schumer could get this through without Nancy Pelosi, if he had the will. He doesn't have the will.


BIGGS: So, the next thing that's going to happen is that the Democrats have a lot of folks back in the D.C. area that aren't going to get paid. And they are going to start putting pressure on the Democrats. That's where you are going to see some leverage that comes in.

And we are going to have to wait it out, actually, I think.

JARRETT: You know, Pam, the problem is the filibuster. I mentioned this last week on the air. Isn't it time to get rid of the filibuster for everything once and for all?

Some media website picked up on it and accused me of mimicking the president. No, in truth, I was mimicking myself in a column I wrote a year and a half ago.

So, I'll say it again. Isn't it time to get rid of the filibuster for all legislation? It is tyranny by the minority. It is exactly what the framers didn't want.

BONDI: It is obstructionist. They are trying not to have a law passed. They are trying not to come to the table. That's exactly what you said, Gregg.

I heard you say it. And that's what you meant by that. I know that is. Yes, it is obstructionist.

And why would you get elected to office and be unwilling to work with the other side on the other side of the aisle?


BONDI: Look what Republicans just did sweeping criminal justice reform. Jared Kushner was brilliant. Democrats wanted it. You know what Republicans did? Compromised to get an overall great bill passed to help those in prison, and that's what this could do. This could save American lives.

JARRETT: All right. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Congressman Andy Biggs, thank you both for being here.

Right here on this show, we have long emphasized that open borders have serious national security implications.

Joining us now with analysis, retired CIA senior intelligence officer Daniel Hoffman, former member of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, Steve Rogers.

Steve, the tragic shooting of the California police officer by an illegal immigrant, known gang affiliations, doesn't that underscore that there are legitimate safety and national security concerns at risk here, which is why there needs to be, not just border security, but a wall?

STEVE ROGERS, TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: It certainly proves president Trump's point, Gregg. Look, President Trump has been very consistent. He is making decisions based on national security, two words that are not in the vocabulary of the Democrats. We have a president saying, we are going to do everything we can to stop the influx of weapons and drugs and those things that threaten national security.

And let's keep one thing in mind, too. He went to the border. He talked to police officers. He talked to border agencies. He got their recommendations, management, by walking around. That is what Abe Lincoln did.

So, President Trump goes down, get the recommendations of those who are being confronted and challenged by criminals. And he made the decision that's what has to be done, the wall.

JARRETT: Dan Hoffman, given your background with the CIA, talk to us about the safety and national security concerns that may be at risk without a wall and without proper border security.

DAN HOFFMAN, CONTRIBUTOR: I think there is no question that constructing a wall at strategic locations with surveillance and a dedicated border patrol can be a last line of defense against transnational criminals and the potential for terrorists to use what is in some places a very porous border.

There's other things we need to do. From my experience at the CIA, I think we need to get out front of this and work with our Mexican partners. We've had some pretty good collaboration with them, we need to hit the cartels pretty hard so we can reduce the drug flow into the United States.

And then, separately, we need e-verify so that illegal aliens can't work here and a visa tracking system because roughly 40 percent of illegal aliens are overstaying their visas. What I don't understand, Gregg, as a citizen, I'm chagrined at the breakdown of the legislative process.

If the cost of comprehensive reform is about $5 billion. I don't understand why we can't get it done and I think as Pam Bondi said, do a little compromise.

JARRETT: Yes, maybe it is coming down to semantics, Steve, because the president wants a wall. Some Democrats are saying, well, a fence would be okay. I mean, that's just a silly semantical argument.

ROGERS: Dan said something very interesting that nobody wants to talk about: the potential of terrorists crossing that border with a weapon much, much larger than a rifle or a pistol. So, I've got to give president Trump a lot of credit on having vision and some forethought on maybe just preventing something like that from happening. That's why, Gregg, the wall is important.

JARRETT: Yes. Dan, you know, I hear Democrats and the media, which I realize is redundant, say, oh, you know, you build a wall, it's 12 feet tall, they'll get a 13-foot ladder. How do you respond so something like that?

HOFFMAN: I'm going to invoke the late Charles Krauthammer, who used to say that we need to reduce the river of illegal immigration to a trickle. Is the border wall a panacea? No. Is it going to stop all illegal immigration? No.

But it's going to reduce it and make it harder for illegal immigration to take place in our country. And that will de-incentivize people from making what is an arduous journey, where many of them risk and sometimes lose their lives.

JARRETT: Do we know of cases where terrorists have come across the southern border, Dan?

HOFFMAN: I think there's been a lot of speculation. I remember quite well when the late Senator John McCain was grilling DHS undersecretary for intelligence, Francis Taylor, back in 2015 about transnational criminals crossing the border and whether there have been terrorists who were detected crossing that border. And honestly, Undersecretary Taylor really didn't do a whole lot to convince me that DHS was able to detect whether terrorists were crossing the border, or whether they in fact had at some point in the past detected them.

And regardless, terrorists are always looking for the soft spots to exploit, the vulnerabilities to exploit. We know that from 9/11. And so, if we see a vulnerability, best to shut it down before someone exploits it to their advantage. And again, we don't want those threats visited on our shores.


Steve, I see you nodding your head at that. Do you agree completely?

ROGERS: Dan has got this nailed down because MS-13 gang members are terrorists and they are looking for avenues to get into this country. And without a wall there, it makes them much, much easier for them to get in.

Another point Dan made, if you could get a strong door, there will be a burglar who could be able to get into the door, but it buys time, it buys time for the police to respond and to do what they are trained to do.

JARRETT: Yes, I mention the ladders, not everybody can bring a ladder to the wall and you are right. It's like a red flag. We can see that coming.

Dan, Steve, thank you both for being with us.

ROGERS: Pleasure.

HOFFMAN: Thank you.

JARRETT: Coming up, the illegal immigrant cop killer suspect, I mentioned a moment ago, he has been caught. We're going to get the fallout and the very latest on that coming up next.


JARRETT: Welcome back to the special edition of HANNITY. As the battle over the budget continues in Washington, we have a lot of breaking news surrounding the crisis of the southern border.

Joining us with the very latest, Jonathan Hunt -- Jonathan.


The biggest headline of the day in the immigration debate, perhaps the arrest of an illegal immigrant who officials say is the killer of Newman, California Police Officer Ronil Singh. The arrest came just 48 hours after the 33-year-old officer, who leaves behind his wife and 5-month-old son, was gunned down. The suspect, Gustavo Perez Arriaga, was in the U.S. illegally, according to the sheriff, who angrily denounced California's so- called sanctuary laws, which the sheriff said prevented Perez Arriaga being deported for previous DUI convictions.


ADAM CHRISTIANSON, STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFF: My point is, why are we providing sanctuary for criminals? Gang members. It's a conversation we need to have.


HUNT: And on the subject of so-called sanctuary laws, just today, the mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, who once warned northern California residents about an impending Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid, said she has, quote, no regrets for her actions and said the federal immigration agency has, quote, gone astray.

With immigration and border issues at the heart of the current government shutdown, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen today visit to the border area near El Paso, Texas. Her visit, we are told, was primarily to get a firsthand look at the medical screening facility at the border stations in the wake of the death this month of two young Guatemalan children who had crossed the border and were taken into custody by Customs and Border Patrol agents. The secretary's visit also comes on the heels of hundreds of immigrants being released onto the streets of El Paso this week by immigration and customs and forward enforcement agents. They say they are constrained by law or for how long they can detain immigrant families.

Secretary Nielsen, by the way, Gregg, is also due to visit border facilities in Yuma, Arizona, tomorrow -- Gregg.

JARRETT: Jonathan, thanks very much.

Joining us with more reaction is author of "How Do I Tax Thee?", Kristen Tate, along with the author of "Dark Winter", Retired Brigadier General Tony Tata, and Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress.

Good to have you both, all three of you with us.

Kristin, let me start with you. The president's critics have long accused him of exaggerating the threat and now, of course, we see the tragic shooting of a police officer the day after Christmas by an illegal immigrant. And the sheriff said this was preventable but California's sanctuary laws made the tragedy possible. He's right, isn't he?

KRISTIN TATE, "HOW DO I TAX THEE?" AUTHOR: The sheriff is absolutely right. This cop killing migrant had been in the country illegally for years, has been arrested numerous times in the past, and was a member of a gang that is notorious for murders and human smuggling. He should not have been here in the first place, and California's sanctuary laws would prevent local officials from turning illegals over to federal officials. He was still here. Had he been deported, this cop would be alive today.

Gregg, how many more Americans need to lose their lives before sanctuary states like California start enforcing federal laws? And I place the blame for this chaos and devastation right at the feet of the Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, who demand open borders, while living in gated communities where they are completely separated from the devastation that their policies are bringing into this country.

JARRETT: General Tata, this is California cities, and, in fact, to some extent the entire state, aiding and abetting criminal behavior. And I cited it many times before, there is a felony federal statute that says that you cannot harbor or shield illegal aliens and if you do, it's five years behind bars. If somebody is killed because of what you did, you can serve up to life behind bars.

Don't we need to start prosecuting some of these people who are aiding and abetting?

TONY TATA, RETIRED BRIGADIER GENERAL: Yes, absolutely, Gregg, we need to start prosecuting. And then we also need to rewind the clock and we need to get these people out of the country, we need to deport these criminals that are being caught. The sanctuary cities need to be done away with.

This is a real problem. And, you know, all the crocodile tears that the left are crying over children at the border and so forth, they are not crying today over this officer's child that is not going to live without a father, Officer Singh's child and wife. And, you know, it's a travesty what is happening at the border and in the sanctuary cities. And border security is every bit as important to national security as anything that we do overseas. And so, we got to fight the enemy on their front 5-yard line, and our 5-yard line as well.

JARRETT: Pastor Jeffress, there is this political cultural cudgel that Democrats and the media are using, and it is, in fact, religion.


JARRETT: I want to play a clip and get your reaction. Here it is.


REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ, D-ILL.: Jesus Christ, who had to flee for his life with Mary and Joseph, thank God there wasn't a wall that stopped him from seeking refuge in Egypt. Thank God there wasn't an administration like this or he would have, too, have perished.

JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: Speak about what Jesus do? That is what Jesus would be. That would be the issue, if you read the New Testament, if you read the gospels, that is exactly what Jesus would be concerned about.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I told him about Solomon, King Solomon, when he was to become king of the Jews. He prayed to god and said, how can I ever follow King David? King David, king of the Jews, I need to give you to give me great understanding and wisdom, Lord. As he prayed and prayed and prayed, God came and said, Solomon, because you did not ask for longevity, great wealth or vengeance against your enemies, I will give you more wisdom than anyone has ever had.


JARRETT: Well, I suspect, Pastor, forgive me for saying so, but I think religious doctrine and religion and faith and grace are all being exploited here for political purposes. What do you think?

JEFFRESS: Well, it's being perverted. You know, 364 days a year, the left usually hates the bible but they use the bible on Christmas to pervert the Christmas story, to push the open borders policy. And look, Nancy Pelosi says the wall was immoral. Even the pope says it's unchristian.

But I remind people that in the bible, God is the one who commanded Nehemiah to build a wall around the city of Jerusalem to protect the citizens. The bible even says heaven is going to have a wall around it, not everybody is going to be allowed in.

I think, Gregg, it's wrong to demonize President Trump for doing what the bible commands them to do as the leader of government and that is to protect our citizens. He is doing the right thing. He should not be demonized for doing it.

There is nothing immoral or unchristian about building a wall to secure our borders to protect our citizens.

JARRETT: Kristin, as Jonathan Hunt report indicated, hundreds, if not thousands of detainees with children are now being released due to a judicial decision. So literally, left at bus stops in a cold, I don't know how in the world they will be absorbed in that region, El Paso. But isn't this a situation and a court decision that actually incentivizes illegals to bring children with them?

TATA: Oh, yes. Central American migrants have learned now that if they come across the border with children, they are far less likely to be deported and far more likely to be released on U.S. soil. That is why we are now dealing with a record numbers of asylum-seekers.

But here's the thing, we meet thousands of migrants are released, we don't have anywhere to house them. These people are roaming the streets with nowhere to go and nothing to do. This has become a real crisis. And the question is, what do we do now? Are we supposed to just build a bunch of low-income housing for every migrant in the world who wants to come here?

I mean, there are tons of homeless veterans already in this country. We already have enough problems here and now, we have the entire third world who wants to come to our country with their children and be taken care of. At some point, there are limits to what we can provide for everybody.

JARRETT: General Tata, is it g a fair bet that most of these people will not be coming back for the court hearings?


TATA: I think that's a bet I would take, Gregg. You know, what you see here -- and I listen to your previous segment, we have this flow coming across the border, as the commentator just said, they bring children, using them as human shields. It is just despicable the way the left champions these people to come across the border and undermine our laws. We are a nation of laws and we have to enforce those laws and we have national security issues.

And in these caravans, there are known terrorists. When Vice President Pence comes out and says, you know, there are several hundred known terrorists and criminals in the caravan.

You don't think that we have people walking in that Caravan, listening and determining who's there, you bet we do and we're not going to blow the sources and methods but we have good intelligence on what's going on and you know we need to start enforcing these laws and sending the people back and defending our own goal line here as we you know, fight overseas also.


JARRETT: Pastor, I've got about 30 seconds left, but I want to give you the final word.

JEFFRESS: You know today Gregg, I preached the funeral service for the Chief of Police of one of our cities here in the Metroplex and I reminded hundreds of police officers that the Bible says, they have been chosen by God to protect those who do right and punish evildoers and I think it's wrong for us to vilify police, I.C.E. officials or the President of the United States for fulfilling that God-ordained purpose of government and that is to create order and to protect us against evil.

JARRETT: Kristin Tate, General Tata, Pastor Jeffress, thank you so much for being with us.

JEFFRESS: Thank you.


JARRETT: Coming up next, an incredible example of media bias like you know, you didn't think it happens. We're going to tell you all about it after the quick break.


JARRETT: Welcome back to this special edition of ‘Hannity'. I'm Gregg Jarrett filling in for Sean. Without a doubt this was not a good week for the mainstream media. NBC News forced to backtrack on its report that President Trump did not visit the troops on Christmas after his surprise visit to Iraq and then ‘‘The Washington Post'' coming under fire for its report of the President's trip.

In a rare move ‘The Wall Street Journal' even called the posts reporting gratuitously negative. Of course ‘The Washington Post' isn't alone in its a gratuitously negative coverage of the President's trip with the troops. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In retrospect and I give him credit for going to Iraq but his actual performance there was shameful.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The President seems to have confused in some way, this troop visit with a campaign rally.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It was really a political rally in front of troops in Iraq.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He treats the troops like props. It converts the troops into a partisan plaything.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's the United States Congress and the people of the United States who are supporting our armed forces. They don't belong to him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's like the Grinch. Instead of -I'm being honest.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it's all Christmas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was so negative and so you want - you want positivity when it comes to Christmas. It is perplexing why would he visit the troops and do that.


JARRETT: Wow. Here now to talk about this week's blatant anti-Trump media bias, Fox News contributor Retired Lieutenant Colonel Allen West and from the Hill, Joe Concha. Good to see you both.

So you know Joe almost in unison, all the news anchors and guests are railing on the President you know and his visit to Iraq, you just saw some of the clips. I don't remember other Presidents including Obama visiting troops.

Giving stirring speeches and so forth. The media didn't lash out at those Presidents. What's the deal?

JOE CONCHA, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Of course not Gregg, because it's Christmastime, a President is visiting troops overseas in these horrible conditions. And any President, whether that be Republican, Democrat, they've been afforded very positive coverage in those situations, rallying around the flag, rallying around the troops. Instead here Gregg, I see three themes and I'll go through them quickly.

The first are mistakes, you just talked about it. NBC says that President Trump is going to be the first President since 2002 not to visit the troops at Christmastime. They post it before Christmastime is even over and then end up making that mistake. Now they backtracked, yes but as you know, the accusation always has seemed a hundred times more than the exoneration.


CONCHA: Right? Then there's the pivot so when the first narrative fell apart, Trump not visiting the troops then it went to what the rap was talking about, what ‘The Washington Post' which is, let's call into question his motive, let's put in a news story that he bowed to public pressure to go because the media covered it so much about him not visiting the troops so therefore that's why.

In other words, we're reading minds now at this point in terms of the President's motive around that and three finally, the bias of omission. Rarely have I seen in any reports or it's been buried, that the first lady whose footwear was actually Maca, she wore Timberlands and I wear Timberlands what else you supposed to wear to a warzone, they're boots but no one really talks about the fact that first lady Melania Trump is the first First Lady to visit a war conflict zone since 1969 Lady Bird Johnson.

You don't read about that I can guarantee. If it was Michelle Obama or whether any Bush, that absolutely would have been covered so those are your three themes there.

JARRETT: You know, I spent a couple of months in Iraq in 2003 right after the outset of the war and I wore Timberlands. It's a good thing the media didn't figure that out. Congressman West, what's your take on all of this?

ALLEN WEST, RETIRED LIEUTENANT COLONEL, UNITED STATES ARMY: Well without a doubt Gregg, and happy New Year to you and Joe. You're just seeing a media that's going to pick apart anything that President Trump does but having been a person that's been in Operation Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think it would have been wise for the President to find someone that had been deployed into a combat zone, someone that could advise him and say, you know what would you like to see from me if I were to visit to a combat zone?

And I think the most important thing would be to say you know Mr. President, everyone previous to you have gone in and they've given all of these speeches and what-have-you.

Why don't you just go over there and sit and talk with our troops? Just serve them some chow for Christmas dinner and just sit and get to know them.

And don't allow the media to turn this into some type of circus and I think that's what's very important about having someone within your inner circle.

A good counsellor, a good advisor that can talk to you from the perspective of someone that's been deployed into these zones. How to do something different, how to do something unique and then you turn the tables on the media, which we know is going to try to find anything wrong with President Trump's actions.

JARRETT: You know Joe, I mean ‘The Washington Post' story was particularly egregious. I mean, these gratuitous paragraphs about perceived scandals not directly related to the principle story. I mean, it was it was just obvious, wasn't it?

CONCHA: Well, of course and look, if that's in the opinions section then we're not talking right now, right? This was the Page One story that people are reading for news, for facts, not for people's feelings on what they think may be happening or what the motive is as we talked about before.

And ‘The Wall Street Journal' then took them the task and suddenly ‘The Washington Post' had had to edit some things but you know, that one CNN story, I just can't get over it, in terms of going after military members who are presenting ‘Make America Great Again' hats to the President to sign.

Well, gee, I mean if you're going to attack military members, you've got a problem but the bigger problem really there is the fact that a, the Air Force then came forward and said no, that doesn't break protocol and again the bias of omission. Obama, President Obama who was candidate Obama at the time, July 2008, went to Kuwait, visited American base there and signed memorabilia.

And I don't have any problem with that, any President doing that to do that for the troops if that makes them happy and this was omitted from CNN's report this time around that previous Presidents have done this before. Again the bias of omission Gregg.

JARRETT: You know, Congressman Allen West, you know you had a former Assistant White House Counsel under Barack Obama going on a tweet storm saying the President's violating the Hatch Act. No the Hatch Act doesn't apply to the President and the Vice President, besides these are people giving him hats, what is he supposed to do say? Sorry, can't touch the hat.

WEST: No, you're absolutely right. The President of the United States of America as the commander-in-chief, he was not over there having any type of election rally. He was not over there talking about who should be supporting him and voting for him. He was not asking the troops to go out and take a stand for him one way shape form or the other.

But if you're a troop and you have something that is representative of the President of the United States of America which is what the ‘Make America Great' hat is and you have the President sign it for you, guess what?

Maybe you had some of the relatives back home sent those hats over to them or anything that they have signed. That is just one of the things as Joe said, keep these troops happy, keep their morale up but to attack them you know and they're the ones that are away from their family members at this time, that's shameful.

JARRETT: Yes and this this guy was White House Counsel, you'd think he'd know better, some White House Counsel, that knucklehead was. Colonel West, Joe, good to see you both.

WEST: Thanks, Happy New Year.

CONCHA: Happy New Year.

JARRETT: Perhaps the most unusual headline yet in the Mueller probe, we're going to tell you about this one, coming up next.


JARRETT: Welcome back to this special edition of ‘Hannity'. Well, it looks like the latest so-called bombshell in the Russia probe may be falling flat yet again, get used to it.

As McClatchy reporter, Greg Gordon is admitting that his news story on Michael Cohen allegedly being in Prague in 2016 you know, meeting with the Russians relies actually not on first-hand knowledge or second hand but third hand knowledge. Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did your sources see the intercepts for themselves or are they passing along information from other people.

GREG GORDON, NEWS REPORTER, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: The sources have - some of the sources have government sources and some of the sources are people who have told us that they have trusted intelligence type sources that they get information from.

We don't know the specifics but we have used these sources on many subjects and they have been very accurate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you know that sounds a lot like the Steele dossier, I reread the Steele dossier today because the reality is if your sources didn't see the intercepts themselves, did they let you see them?

GORDON: Did they let us -

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were you were - did they pass - have you seen the intercepts?



JARRETT: No, bit of a problem there. Even MSNBC says this looks a lot like the infamous Steele dossier and remember Cohen has flatly denied the report. And in yet another bizarre turn, a new court filing claims that Robert Muller collected a ‘nude selfie' as part of his investigation.

No, not of himself, but a nude selfie just generally through his investigation. Joining us now for reaction, Fox News contributor David Webb and former Clinton pollster, Doug Schoen who's also a Fox News contributor. So this guy, read McClatchy, you know you saw the clip.


JARRETT: It's kind of like a guy told a guy who told me.

SCHOEN: Right.

JARRETT: And it's not only thin, I mean it's reckless and irresponsible, Doug.

SCHOEN: Well, look, Michael Cohen is presumably looking for a formal cooperation agreement or a letter from the special counsel that he fully cooperated. He has said explicitly not only that he was not in Prague but he was not in the Czech Republic.

If it wasn't the case, how could he be doing this given what he is ultimately seeking and that sourcing Gregg, makes no sense at all. You haven't seen it even in The Times or ‘The Washington Post', I looked.

JARRETT: It's garbage and as I put it out in my book about this very subject, that was something that was demonstrably false and I mean Cohen has every reason if it's true to say it's true, he'd be golden with Mueller.

SCHOEN: Exactly.

DAVID WEBB, CONTRIBUTOR: And the fact is that this is something so easy to prove if it was true so this goes beyond hearsay, right? First, second, third.

JARRETT: Yes, it's the triple quadruple hearsay.

WEBB: Right but the problem with this also is where is reporting gone for me as somebody who's in the media, you got the guy from Der Spiegel who makes up stories and facts, doesn't have real sources, you've got these reporters.

McClatchy is a respectable organization, they've got to be looking at this and what this does to their organization.

JARRETT: I mean, yes, what about that?

SCHOEN: Well, it does raise questions and look, I looked last night when this came out for how the mainstream media handled it, what Cohen said, what his so-called spokesman lawyer Lanny Davis said and none of it gave me any confidence that this sourcing about a cell phone that may have taken a vacation on its own somewhere near the Czech Republic, which is about all that seems to be reported is the case.

I'm befuddled by the whole thing, just totally.

WEBB: Yes, there's not even really a legal aspect to this when it comes to what this is about so where are they going with this? This is - more this is about delegitimizing, attacking, going after Trump, you and I've talked about this, others have talked.

If they really want to go after Cohen for serious charges, they could have taken them to tax court and other things, there's all angles around President Trump.

JARRETT: The - you know, it's in the dossier, it is, I continue to read the dossier all the time because you know I never fail to laugh and I can always use a good laugh. I mean it's preposterous on its face, this is another demonstrably false facet of the dossier but I want to switch to this crazy selfie in that Mueller ‘nude selfie', that Mueller has obtained through his investigation.

Boy, talk about no stone being left unturned.

WEBB: That's not a pun, really, no please don't.

JARRETT: I mean but here's the funny thing about it he won't turn it over to Concord management, the Russian firm that's asking for because he says that the nude selfie is allegedly national security.

WEBB: What do they have? A tattoo of his classified document on this?

SCHOEN: You are a lot better lawyer than I am, man. And I went through the Harvard Law School as we've discussed, you, a skilled defense lawyer, not me but I don't really know how to react to this one. I'm really befuddled, usually I have answers.

I think sometimes even good answers. On this one, I don't know.

WEBB: I'd say, go to your supermarket checkout line because that's where this story belongs. The National Enquirer.

JARRETT: Yes. It probably does we didn't have smartphones and selfies back then. We had Polaroids.

WEBB: Turn it around and stick your arms up.

JARRETT: Yes and they're all yellow now and you can't even see what's on them. All right David Webb and Doug Schoen, good to see you. Thanks very much.

WEBB: Thank you.

JARRETT: Coming up next, the Dems are ratcheting up their impeachment plans and left-wing media are going of course into overdrive. Stick around for that one.


JARRETT: Welcome back to the special edition of ‘Hannity.' Yesterday, Elizabeth Drew, a journalist who reported way back on the Watergate scandal wrote an op-ed in ‘The New York Times' titled, The inevitability of impeachment: Even the Republicans may be deciding that the President has become too great a burden to their party or too great a danger to the country.

Sounds like she's in lockstep with the Democrats. Remember these discussions of impeaching President Trump?


REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: Trump would like to redefine the law, the way that he wants to redefine it, but he's wrong. And yes, I believe he should be impeached. I really do believe that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have learned that there is no evidence that the President of the United States engaged in a felony to obtain the office of President.

The constitution could not be any clearer. Impeachment is the appropriate remedy for bribery, for treason, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It speaks for itself.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., MINORITY LEADER: Because I think impeachment is something that has an impact on the country. When the facts are clear, the law is certainly clear. When the facts are clear then this time we'll make a decision.

WATERS: His motives and his actions are the contemplable and I will fight every day until he's impeached.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call for the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.


JARRETT: Joining us now is attorney and ‘Lawyer Differently', CEO, Bryan Rotella and ‘Relatable' podcast host, Allie Stuckey. Bryan, let me turn to you first, since you are the lawyer. I thought better of Elizabeth Drew until I read this op-ed, in which she makes it abundantly clear that a President can and should be impeached if his political opponents simply disagree with his policies. That is ludicrous, isn't it?

BRYAN ROTELLA, CEO, LAWYER DIFFERENTLY: Absolutely Gregg. Look, this is the whole theory that we have been seeing from all of the layers on the left. All of them have been what I call the chicken little legal strategy, which is we keep saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling, that Trump should be impeached. Eventually they're going to have to prove it. What I say is, it's like you think you are going to see the aliens on Independence Day and all of a sudden, elf walks out.

And I think that's the problem that they're going to have. Why? You know this Gregg, you understand what Watergate's about and it really is disappointing that Drew didn't seem to understand it.

In Watergate, we had a special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, he put 62 pages together with his grand jury called the road to Watergate. It was a, a third grader could see that President Nixon did something wrong there. Do we think that Mueller's going to be able to get something done that's less than war and peace when he does his report and that anyone is going to understand it? I think that this type of stuff is going to ultimately backfire on Mueller.

JARRETT: So Allie, Elizabeth Drew cites, troop withdrawal, Mattis resignation, partial government shutdown, ongoing investigations involving Trump, as all reasons to justify impeachment. But those aren't treason high-crimes and misdemeanor, are they?

ALLIE BETH STUCKEY, HOST, RELATABLE PODCAST: No. They are not impeachable offenses. These are reasons why some people might not like Donald Trump. But as you've already pointed out, that's not a reason to file for impeachment. But I think we already know what's going to happen, the House probably will file for impeachment.

And I think that's a great strategy for Donald Trump going into 2020. Let the Democrats run themselves into the ground in this, if this is how they want to run, if this is the platform that they're going to run on which is simply hating Donald Trump, Donald Trump can leverage that madness to continue his agenda, to continue carrying out the things that the American people want.

It's going to be very difficult for Americans in 2020 to make the choice for the party that simply does not have a platform besides beating the current President.

JARRETT: You know, Bryan, I actually spent the last chapter of my book talking about the incredible media bias toward Trump. You know, they wrote that he was a Manchurian candidate. Putin's de facto puppet. One anchor even fantasized on air about the arrest of Donald Trump, barricading himself in the Oval office, as federal Marshals came to arrest him.

I mean, I'm not making this stuff up. This was actually said by so-called journalists. Has their unabashed scorn and visceral hatred for the man totally obscured their judgment and common sense?

ROTELLA: Absolutely Gregg, and your book was fantastic by the way.

JARRETT: Thank you.

ROTELLA: But one thing I want to mention about your book and that you touch on is again we are trying to draw parallels to Watergate and to President Trump. You know as a lawyer like me, the worst type of client we have is the one that won't tell you anything and hides and is secretive.

That was Richard Nixon, I mean , the guy actually taped himself in secret. This President tweets every day. Now I know a lot of people don't like his tweets but his tweets are out there for the entire public to see. He is fully transparent. I think as a lawyer, I think that's part of what drives people nuts.

They are not used to his transparency. I do think ultimately though for a legal reason, and what Allie says is absolutely accurate, this is never going to get to high crimes and misdemeanors and I really think our audience should be interested in what Mueller's report looks like and compare it to the Road to Watergate report, compare it to the Ken Starr report. I'm betting it's going to be a lot lesser than Ken Starr's.

JARRETT: Allie, I got last word for you, I got about 30 seconds.

STUCKEY: I think you are exactly right and I think that the Democrats know that. That's why they have already drawn and are publicizing their conclusion before Mueller's report actually comes out. They are making the case to the public for impeachment, simply so that they can run on that.

Facts don't matter, justice doesn't matter, morality doesn't matter. It's just about not liking President Trump.

JARRETT: Bryan and Allie, thanks very much. Unfortunately that's all the time we have left tonight. Be sure to check out my book, I mentioned it, "The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump."

As always, thanks for being with us, have a great weekend.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.